Letter to the District Committees of the Petrograd Organisation of the R.S.D.L.P. (Bolsheviks)

Published:First published in 1925 in the journalKrasnaya Letopis(Red Annals), No. 3 (14).

      Published according to the text of the typewritten copy.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1964,

      Moscow,Volume 24,

      pages552-555.Translated:Isaacs BernardTranscription\Markup:B. BagginsandD. WaltersPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      1999

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

Dearcomrades,

Ienclose a resolution of the Petrograd Committee concerning the
      establishment of a paper of its own, and two resolutions
      introduced by me on behalf of the Central Committee of the
      Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party at a meeting of the
      P.C. held on Tuesday,
May 30.[1]Will
      you please discuss these three resolutions and give us your
      well-considered opinion on them in the fullest possible detail.

Onthe question as to whether a separate paper for the Petrograd
      organisation is needed or not, the P.C.[Petrograd Committee of the Bolshevik
      Party]and the C.C.[Central
      Committee of the Bolshevik Party]hold conflicting
      views. It is essential and desirable that the greatest possible
      number of Party members in Petrograd should take an active part
      in the discussion of this growing conflict and help, by their
      decision, to settle it.

TheExecutive of the P.C. has expressed itself unanimously in
      favour of a separate press organ for the Petrograd Committee,
      despite the C.C.’s decision to establishtwonewspapers
      in place ofPravda, the size of which is obviously
      inadequate. These two papers are: the oldPravda, as
      the Party’s Central Organ, and a smallNarodnaya Pravda(the names of the two papers have not yet been definitely
      decidedupon), as a popular organ for the masses. The two
      papers, according to the decision of the C.C., are to have a
      single editorial board, and the P.C. is to have a representative
      on each paper (one with a consultative voice on the Central
      Organ, and a voting representative on the popular organ). A
      Press Committee is to be set up (consisting of workers from the
      districts who are in close touch with the masses) and a definite
      number of columns inbothpapers are to be set aside
      for the needs of the local labour movement.

Thatis the plan of the C.C.

TheExecutive of the P.C., on the other hand, wants a special
      paperof its own.The Executive has decided upon this
      unanimously.

Atthe meeting of the P.C. held on May 30, after the report by
      Comrade M. Tomsky and his speech winding up the debate, after my
      own speech and the discussion in which many comrades
      participated, there was an equal division of votes—fourteen
      in favour of the Executive and fourteen against it. My motion
      was rejected by sixteen votes to twelve.

Myown view is that there is no fundamental need for a special
      organ of the P.C. In view of thecapital’sleading role
      and country-wide influence[Petrograd was
      the capital of Russia at the time], onlyoneorgan of the Party is needed there, namely, the Central Organ,
      and a popular pa per to be put out in aspeciallypopular form by thesameeditorial board.

Aspecial organ of the P.C. is bound to create obstacles towards
      harmonious work and may even give rise to different lines (or
      shadings) of policy, which would be extremely harmful,
      especially at a time of revolution.

Whyshould we split up our forces?

Weare all terribly overworked and have few people to do the
      work; the party writers are siding more and more with the
      defencists. Under the circumstances we cannot afford any
      dispersion of efforts.

Wemust concentrate our efforts, not disperse them.

Arethere
      any grounds for mistrusting the C.C., for believing that it will
      not select the editorial board properly, or not give sufficient
      space in both papers to local activities, or that it will
      “bully” the P.C.’s editors, who will be in the minority, and so
      on?

Inmy second draft resolution I specially listed some of these
      arguments (which I heard mentioned at the P.C. meeting on May
      30) in order to put the issue frankly before all members of the
      Party so as to make them weigheachof the two
      arguments carefully and arrive at a well-considered decision.

Ifyou, comrades, have weighty and serious reasons for not
      trusting the C.C., then say so openly. It is the duty of every
      member of our democratically organised Party to do so, and then
      it would be the duty of our Party’s C.C. to give special
      consideration to this distrust of yours, report it to the Party
      congress and enter into special negotiations with a view to
      overcoming this deplorable lack of confidence in the C.C. on the
      part of the local organisation.

Ifthere is no such lack of confidence, then it is unfair and
      wrong to challenge the C.C.’s right, vested in it by the Party
      congress, todirect the activitiesof the Party in
      general and its activities in the capital in particular.

Isour C.C. asking too much in wanting to direct the Petrograd
      papers? It is not. In the German Social-Democratic Party, in its
      best days, when Wilhelm Liebknecht stood at the head of the
      party for scores of years, he was the editor of the party’s
      Central Organ. The C.O. was published in Berlin. The Berlin
      organisationneverhad a special Berlin paper of its
      own. There was a Press Committee of workers, and there was alocal sectionin the party’s Central Organ. Why should
      we depart from this good example which our comrades in other
      countries have set us?

Ifyou, comrades, desirespecial guaranteesfrom the
      C.C., if you want changes made in one or another point of the
      C.C.’s plan for the establishment of two papers, I would ask you
      on behalf of the C.C to carefully consider the matter and
      present your views.

Ibelieve that the decision of the P.C.’s Executive to establish
      aspecialnewspaper in Petrograd is utterly wrong and
      undesirable, because it splits up our forces and introduces into
      our Party the elements of conflict. In my opinion—and on
      this point I merely voice the view of the C.C.—it is
      desirable that the Petrograd organisation should support thedecision of the C.C., give itself time to check results from theexperienceof the two papers working according to the
      C.C.’s plan, and then, if need be, pass a special decision on
      the results of that experiment.

Withcomradely Social-Democratic greetings,

May 31, 1917

[1]Seep. 545

[Draft Resolutions Introduced]

of this volume.—Ed.